tv U.S. Senate CSPAN September 23, 2013 2:00pm-8:01pm EDT
c-span2. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and merciful god, father of all mercies, thank you for your exceeding by great and precious promises that inspire us. you keep your promises to supply our needs, to sustain us with your love, and to provide us
with your peace. today, guide our senators, enabling them to listen to the whisper of conscience, as they labor to keep this nation strong. may their first priority be to live for your honor, fulfilling your purpose for their lives. lord, create in them contrite hearts that they may worthily be instruments of your peace. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 23, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tim kaine, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid:man, i move to proceed to h.j. res. 59, 9 continuing resolution. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.j. res. 59, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there willing no roll call votes today. it is not necessary to have any because we're in a procedural
situation here dealing with the c.r. the first vote of the week will be tomorrow at 11:45 on confirmation of a judge, a federal circuit court judge by the name of hughes. i ask consent that between now and 6:00 p.m., senators be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider nominations number 338, 33 the, 314 and 343. senator does the -- the presiding officer: does the senator yield? mr. cruz: well, i object. you asked for consent, and i object. mr. reid: the house deny add plan for health insurance. outside the house republican bubble, reaction was altogether different. the radical tea party plan to shut down the government, unless
democrats dish it has been called the dumbest idea by one republican senator. it has been called a box can john, a morass from which the republicans will not escape. it has been called dishonest by one republican senator and a suicide note by another republican senator. so, mr. president, the reviews are in and they're -- and they're yiewsm the ransom demanded by republicans is unworkable and unreal stliks. president obama has been clear and i've been clear. any bill that defunds obama and his health care plan is dead on arrival in the senate. affordable care act has been the law of the land for four years now. democrats are willing to work with reasonable republicans to improve this law. but we will now understand that there is an anarchy movement that's afoot. a lead editorial in "the new
york times" wednesday of last week said that. but we're not going to bow to tea party anarchists who deny the mere fact that obamacare is the law. we will not how to tea party anarchists who refuse to accept that the supreme court ruled that obamacare is constitution. they ignore the fact that president obama was overwhelmingly reelected a few months ago. these fanatics really point to disapproval for obamacare as justification for taking the federal government and our economy hostage to their demands. what they pail to mention to the american and to the senate and house is that 59% of americans either support the law or wish it were even more far-reaching and transformative for our health care delivery system according to a cnn poll. a vast majority of americans including those who disapprove of the health care law want
congress to work to improve it, not to tear it down. and according to a new cnbc poll, americans overwhelmingly oppose defunding obamacare, fep it means shut ug down the government to $so. mr. president, the facts are that the vast majority of the american people are satisfied with obamacare. the simple fact remains, obamacare is the law of the land and will remain the law of the land as long as barack obama is president of the united states and as long as i'm senate majority leader. the latest gamble by republicans in the house of representatives made with the backing of their radical allies in the senate only postpones the inevitable. this week the united states senate will act as quickly as tea party republicans will allow. once the senate has acted, house republicans will face a choice: pass a clean continuing resolution or shut down the federal government. so the question, are extremist republicans really willing to
shut down the government? time will only tell. but the world looks to america for leadership and it is this lack of respect for the rule of law truly the example wish we wish to set for others? are our republicans so intent on undermining the president and his signature health care law that they're willing to inthrict severe damage to our economy in the snros america will know exactly who to blame: republican fanatics in the house and senate. so i urge those republicans to listen to the more reasonable republicans in the senate. i have a read some of their commentary on what is contemplated and how dumb they think it is. i repeat, one senator, a republican senator, said it is the dumbest idea he ever heard. two dozen senate republicans have spoken out against this plan to drive the economy off a cliff. two dozen.
this thelma and louise style isn't getting the attention of the nerp a positive tone. if democrats don't beau but to every demand they have, they want to go right over the cliff. we are not going to go with them. i am glad to see more and more of my moderate republican colleagues stepping upes to the extremist element of their own party. it was written in "the new york times," "speaker boehner troped under the thumb of tea party ar anarchists called it a victory for common sense. " she said, "more like a triumph of nonsense, not common sense." so a few reasonable republicans are wise enough to know that risking the nation's economic recovery for the sake of aan ideological victory would be another step toured the death deathnell of the republican
party. every one of these senators that i read their comments to everyone listening, plus the 20 or so others that i didn't mention, they're conservative republicans. they're just not radical. so, mr. president, i say the house and senate republicans continue to deny a reality and risk america's economy. listen to the chorus around you. listen to what they're saying. your conservative senate colleagues have urged you off this reckless course. the chamber of commerce has urged you off the course. american are families are weary both of these foolish partisan fights and of these difficult economic times, have urged you off this reckless course. and on behalf of the democrats who long for the days when we legislated through cooperation, we did it instead of hostage taking, i personally irnlg you
off this reckless -- i personally urge you off this reckless course. it remains to be seen whether they're wise enough to listen. mr. president, we have a number of people we're trying to get approved to confirm nominations. they've been approved by everyone as far as i know, and i would again, unless my friend from texas objects to these people getting the confirmations, will -- does my friend object to the -- mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, i'm happy to discuss it with the majority leader, but at this point, yes, i object. mr. reid: i'll make my request and you grab your reservation and we'll talk about it. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive
session to consider the following nominations: calendar number 338, 339, 341, and 343. the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to any of the nominations and any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: oib. the presiding officer: there is object. objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the quorum call is suspended. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations. mr. president, i stated the request earlier. i would re-engage in that and ask consent that be the case. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum will be suspendedment. the presiding officer: thank you, mr. president. earlier this month we marked the 12th anniversary of the
terrorist attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon that killed more than 3,000 people. our fight against terrorism continues today. we can be proud of all of america's military personnel and the veterans of the global war on terror have accomplished as well as the ongoing efforts. many brave americans put their lives on the line every day to defend this country because terrorists remain committed to harming the united states. many have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. we must honor the sacrifice of the men and women who laid down their lives for us. arkansas has a proud history of its citizens serving this country in the military. many brave arkansans, including two recently, have given their lives defending our country on
the battlefield. we continue to honor the men and women who have given their last full measure of devotion to protect our nation. sergeant jamar avery hicks sacrificed his life for this country in support of operation enduring freedom. he graduated from haw high school in little rock, arkansas, in 2009. one of his former teachers described him as a student who didn't mind going out of his way to help others and never looked for anything in return. she says she would have taken a whole classroom filled with students like jamar. those closest to sergeant hicks describe him as a quiet, gentle, and unassuming man with an infectious smile who always had a positive outlook on life. sergeant hicks joined the army in november of 2009.
his friends say he loved the army, and his military service drove him to continue to improve himself. sergeant hicks was assigned to headquarters and headquarters battery 4th battalion 320th field artillery regimen, 101st airborne division fort campbell, kentucky, as a vehicle driver. he gave his life on august 11, 2013, his 22nd birthday, after enemy forces attacked his unit within direct fire in after afghanistan. i ask my cheetion t colleagues s farmer, including his wife and son and friends in their thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time. most recently the natural state honored the life of sergeant first class ricardo young, as state flags flew at half-mast. sergeant first class young
graduated from nevada high school in arkansas in 1997. his family and friends describe him as fun-loving, caring, and always full of life. sergeant first class young joined the army in september of 19. he strained at fort benning before his first assignment at fort campbell, kentucky. in his 15 years of military service, sergeant first class young was deployed to two tours in iraq, one in afghanistan, and in addition to other missions around the globe. sergeant first class young was assigned to the 738th engineer support company, 307th engineer battalion, 20th engineer brigade, 18th airborne corps, fort brag, north carolina. on august 28, 2013, he gave his life in support of operation enduring freedom in fair
province, afghanistan. on behalf of a grateful narks i humbly offer my sincerest gratitude for the patriotism and selfless service of sergeant first class young and sergeant hicks. let us never forget the sacrifices of our troops and let their legacies be an inspiration for all americans. with that, i yield the floor and suggest an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. a senator: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is suspended. mr. nelson: mr. president, i'd like to be recognized to speak on a few issues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, in the course of the next few weeks, it's going to be white knuckle time. here coming up next week, october 1 begins a new fiscal year of which all appropriations funding for the government, save, for those programs that
automatically flow, such as medicare, social security, all others will cease to have funding unless we can continue to fund through appropriations bills coming up. and that's next week. and as you know, there are a number of people on that side of the aisle are threatening to shut down the government unless they get their way. in this particular case, a lot of them in the house of representatives are saying their way or no way that they want to defund the implementation of the law that's been in existence for three years, setting up a reform of the health care system. but the highways knuckle, assuming that we can get over that little hurdle, the white knuckle will continue because shortly thereafter we are going to get to the day of reckoning
about whether or not the united states government can pay its bills, because of the artificial debt ceiling set in statute that says that above a certain level the u.s. government cannot borrow any more money. now these are obligations that have already been incurred. in other words, just think how many of us own united states bonds. and a bunch of those bonds are coming due. that's in large part how we finance the debt of the united states, by selling securities with the full faith and credit of the strongest financial government on the face of planet earth. and, therefore, if that debt ceiling, that artificial ceiling, set in statute is not
raised, the government can't go out and borrow he any more money. in other words, issuing new bonds. that's when the knuckle completely turn white. now just listen to what a respected economist, the chief economist for moody's, mark zandi, told the joint economic committee last week. he says, "the financial markets of this country, indeed the international markets as well, will start to get jitterry starting next week if there's no clear path to a deal on raising that artificial statutory debt ceiling." he says, "then that jitteryness
is going to turn into panic once the united states treasury cannot make its payments." he further went on to say -- and i quote -- "if you don't do it in time, confidence will evaporate, consumer confidence will sharply decline. businesses, i hope the american people, by the way, can understand this. what are the consequences of this? businesses will stop hiring, he says, i'm continuing his quote, "consumers will stop spending." listen to that, shop owners. "and the stock market will fall significantly in value. and how about this, small
business owners? i continue his quote, "borrowing costs for businesses and households will continue to rise. significantly. and you know what he told us the, the same economist told us two years ago when we were getting ready, getting right up to the precipice on the debt ceiling? he said at that time -- quote -- "at the end of the day if we don't raise the debt ceiling, the economy is going to go back into a recession, and interest rates are going to spike. " end of quote. mr. president, in your state the housing market is recovering, as it is in my state. people are really excited about buying a new house or selling
their old house and moving into a new house. and interest rates are still relatively low. but in a state like virginia or my state of florida, where housing is such a critical component of the economy, just think what's going to happen if the interest rates suddenly spike. and now the cost of getting into a new house is double what it was before because of the interest rates spiking and because they're less inclined, if the interest rates spike, to get that new mortgage. then the houses are not selling and the values of the houses that have been recovering out of the deep recession, instead of
going this way, are starting to go that way. now, the american people have not focused on this, of what are the consequences if these guys on that side of the aisle and down there at the other end of the capitol in fact cause the united states government to go into default. well let's listen to some more exerts. martin fell stein, former chairman and counsel of economic advisors for whom? for a republican president, president reagan. quote -- "the debt ceiling is a very dangerous thing to play with." how about respected bob rubin, treasury secretary under president clinton. remember the 1990's, how the
economy was really surging, how people were feeling good? let's see what he says. quote, defaulting on our commitments is unthinkable and dangerous, and the debt ceiling should be raised now without conditions. which is what the president has said. he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling because of all of these consequences. and yet, they're saying if they don't get their way to take away the funding for the implementation of the part of the health care bill that is supposed to go into effect -- a lot has already gone into effect. they want to take the funds away. well, let's listen to another respected economist. after all, he's shepherded us ouflt recession because he's the
chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, and he says -- quote -- "but i do hope that congress will allow the government to pay its bills. not raise the possibility of default, which would be very, very costly to the economy. a little bit of understand statement as the chairman of the tpefrb always is -- chairman of the federal reserve always is but it's a zinger. and mark zandi, the one that we quoted before, says "this dark scenario is so dark, i can't even imagine it." how about another vice chairman of the federal reserve, alan
blinder. quote -- in short the consequences of hitting the debt ceiling are too awful, too awful to contemplate." a same congress would not even think about it. let me quote another republican. brute bartlett -- bruce bartlett, deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at treasury under president george h.w. bush. this is what he said: "a potential debt default is far more than a domestic consideration. it is a matter of foreign policy." now, that leads me to briefly comment. we suddenly have in the international arena a whole bunch of new things that might
be optimistic signs. if the russians follow through and if president assad does, in fact, open up -- and those are two big ifs, but at least it's happened thus far in the first week. in assad does, in fact, open up his chemical weapons, then there is the possibility that not only would the ability to disperse chemical weapons in syria have been eliminated, but the entire weapons would have been eliminated. that's a pretty good first step. and then, too, we're hearing a new president of iran as a result of an election in iran start to talk a new tune with an
outreach to the west. should we be skeptical? of course. but if they follow through on their statements, and i can tell you that this one senator has already talked to the foreign minister of iran, the new foreign minister of iran, former iranian ambassador to the united nations -- i talked to him last friday. i talked to him about what a gesture of goodwill it could be if they could find the missing retired f.b.i. agent who has disappeared six and a half years ago, bob levinson from the tourist island of ciche off of the iranian coast, if they could find him and return him to his wife and seven children after having been gone for six and a half years, and of which we have had proof of life twice, one
with a video and secondly two years ago with a photo. what a gesture of goodwill that would be that they were sincere about having a new relationship with the west. so if those intrigues are real and they happen, would we want to undermine so much of that to put it in the words of a republican advisor of the treasury to president george h.w. bush, a potential default is far more than a domestic consideration, it is a matter of foreign policy. would we want to weaken the united states government as it negotiates over these critical matters. and i will conclude, mr. president, by saying there is some movement and discussions
under way about a two-state solution between israel and palestine with security safeguards for both. again, if there is any reality to these new messages that are flowing around and of which our secretary of state, our former colleague, john kerry, is trying desperately to bring about, if there is any reality to that, just think of what that does to improve the world's situation of which the enormous beneficiary is the united states of america. and yet would we be threatening again, pulling the economic underpinnings out from all of our negotiators on these three
main negotiated topics that are now in front of us that affect the national security so desperately of the united states and the security of our allies. i don't think so. and that's why i think there are a bunch of folks over here that are trying to get those guys down there in the house of representatives to come to their senses, but we've seen this brink man ship before. i hope cooler and more rational heads will prevail. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call be suspended. mr. sessions: mr. president, we have a very serious problem with the health care bill. costs are surging, we now have a score from the congressional budget office that as written, it will add $6,000,000,000,000.00 the unfunded liabilities of the
united states of america. personal insurance premiums are going up, hiewns are in -- unions are in full rebellion, congress is in rebellion with regard to our staff, doctors recently -- doctors are rebelling, many of them are giving up practices and they didn't get -- the one thing they really needed was a fix to their financial reimbursement plan. the president's had to delay the employer mandate. it's nowhere close to workable. it's not good. and there are many more bad things i could say the about the status we are in today. the only person who apparently is stuck with this who doesn't have power to influence the process is john q. citizen. unions are getting delays, businesses are getting employer mandate delayed, because it just won't work.
and, in fact, this bill is clearly indisputable savaging job creation and economic growth. 77% of the people who got a job this year got a part-time job, and every expert says obamacare is a big part of that reason, a big part of that. businesses are staying below 50 employees so they feel like they're not so bound. wages are down again this year. unemployment is high. the percentage of the american people who are actually working is down. the workplace rate. and that's down since 1975. it's the lowest point since 1975. and this health care bill is a big part of it. it just is, and everybody knows it. talk to any business person and
they'll tell you the uncertainty, the cost, the problems that are entailed with it are impacting what they do. that's just a fact. and so this year, the senate has done nothing, done absolutely nothing. every attempt to bring up, to fix, to confront the serious problems with this bill have been blocked by the senate democratic majority led by senator reid. and that's just a fafnlg fact. the house has passed repeated bills to confront this problem and try to fix this problem, and they've now sent over a bill from the house that funds the government of the united states and replaces this bill -- this health care proposal with another framework for improving health care in america. so they've done that significantly.
and we ought to understand the posture we're in here. so the senate democrats have refused to consider any reform and the house has passed a number of bills to deal with this in a responsible way, and they have passed a bill, a continuing resolution, to fund the government of the united states, but it alters the president's health care bill. and what does he say? he says, well, i'll talk with putin, negotiate with him, i'll negotiate with assad, i'll negotiate with iran, but i won't even talk with anyone in the united states congress about fixing this health care bill that's clearly unworkable and senior senator one of our members said, "a train wreck." no change, not one jot, not one tittle of my health care will be changed. what is he saying there?
i'll shut down the government before i'll allow a change in my perfect health care bill. so i want to raise the question, who is causing the problem in this country? who is the one that's refusing to fix an obviously failed health care bill that needs major reform? it's the president of the united states and the majority in the senate. and i express my deepest concern about it, as a member of the budget committee. and we'll talk about it more in the days to come. this bill is not what it was sold to be. the american people have never believed you can have a huge expansion of health care and not have an impact on the united states budget. and they're absolutely right, as the c.b.o. will tell us and has already told us. so, mr. president, i know others are prepared to talk, and i just want to say, we need to
understand what's happened. it's time for us to fix this bill and make some fundamental changes in it, and all we're having and hearing from the white house is, no, sir, not one change will they accept. we won't even have serious negotiations about it. that's unacceptable. it needs to change, and i hope in the next few days the american people can become engaged and perhaps our colleagues will see it differently. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that i be given 20 minutes to speak. the presiding officer: is there objection? the majority leader? mr. reid: no objection whatsoever to the senator speaking, but it was my understanding that he was going to have some consent agreements, and i understand he has great persuasive talents in speaking, but i am not going to be able to do that. i interrupted my schedule today, which was happy to do, to at the convenience of the senator from texas. so i will be back in 20 minutes, and you can ask your consents at that time, is that okay? mr. cruz: i am happy to ask the consents at the outset, if -- mr. reid: you have my word, i
will watch what i can. if i can't, i will read every word of it tonight. mr. cruz: and i am hopeful that my words will be persuasive when you watch it. mr. reid: my friend is always persuasive. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: the first unanimous consent request that i would put forward, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate agree to the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 59, that no debate, amendments, or motion to the resolution be in order, that any and all points of order be waived, that the resolution be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, my friend gets right to the point, and i appreciate that. i understand the junior senator from texas asked consent to pass the house-passed continuing
resolution by consent without any amendments. as i said, he got right to the point. i understand that. the house-passepassed resolutios we know now, would defund obamacare. it would block not only the administration of the program but all related benefits as well. and that's untoward. second, it includes so-called debt prioritization language or what has been called the "pay china first" policy. this would leave us vulnerable to default on our obligations to everyone else besides bondholders and social security, everyone from veterans to small businesses, to federal employees, contractors, doctors, hospitals, and medicare patients generally. so, mr. president, the president would veto this continuing resolution, so it is not going to become law anyway, and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president, the second unanimous consent request that i would put forward. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate agree to
the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 59, that any and all points of order be waived, that during consideration of h.j. res. 59, adoption of any amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote thresholded and that upon disposition of all amendments, the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to can he railroad be made and laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president, i again yo understand the senator from texas and his request, which would create a new 60-vote hurdle where the senate rules do not require one at the present time. mr. president, i really try to follow the senate rules. sometimes they are object noxious and i wish they were different but i try my best. -- in leading news this difficult senate -- in leading us in this difficult matter is
timesometimes to live up to alle rules. the senate rules set up a lot of hurdles. that's the way the precedents have been developed over the years. i understand that. sometimes senators like these. sometimes they don't. i guess that most would say that senators have enough -- enough 60-vote hurdles, that the senate has enough of these really arbitrary hurdles as it is. don't add even more barriers to get more things done. mr. president, we should be careful about adding new barriers. the american people are really fed up. i mean, i traveled the country, and it's rare that i go someplace that they don't say, what are you going to do to change the rules? they know what the rules are and how difficult they are. and i would bet the vast, vast
majority of the senators -- democrats and republicans -- would like them changed. the problem is, mr. president, we have tried that recently. we were able to get -- make a little headway but not a lot. so i think that most americans would rather that we work in ways to agree to work together rather than disagree. i almost would bet -- although i am not a betting are man -- that most americans would want us to agree on not shutting down the government. i know the sincerity of the senator from texas. i understand that. i disagree with him. i hope as sincerely as he disagrees with me. but i don't take away from his sincerity. but having said that i am in a position now to object, and i must do that. the presiding officer: objection is heard.
the senator from texas. mr. reid: i have been asked to do a brief unanimous consent request. mr. cruz: i am happy to yield. mr. reid: i have only one consent request for a committee to meet. it has my approval and that of senator mcconnell. dishai it be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: at this point, i now ask unanimous consent that i be a20 minutes to -- allowed 20 minutes to speak. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, these two unanimous consent requests have the virtue of being clarified, clarifying what this debate is that the senate will face this week, and i am going to suggest to you, mr. president, the senate has not faced a more important debate in the short time that you and i have both served in this institution.
no american wants a government shutdown. i don't want a government shutdown. no one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. the house of representatives doesn't want a government shutdown. mr. president, five minutes ago the senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown. the request that i promulgated to the majority leader was to pass the continuing resolution that the house of representatives passed. and if that had happened, there would be no government shutdown. a government shutdown would be taken off the table. the specter that you and i see on the television screen every day, the countdown clock that has started to appear would disappear. but unfortunately, the majority leader chose to object. to object and to say no, he would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it. now why? again the majority leader was quite candid. because he supports the law called obamacare.
i would note a component of that also. one of the pieces that the house of representatives passed was a law that has been called the default prevention act. the president of the united states has been doing a fair amount of public speaking, raising the prospect of a default on our debt. and the house of representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say the united states will never ever, ever default on its debt. that in the event the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt first. i suspect every member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt. i think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name taking a default off the table. i think that's unfortunate. there is a tendency in this town towards brinksmanship, towards pointing to events that can
cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way. i wish the majority leader had been willing to step forward and say i agree, number one, that the government should be funded. we should not have a government shutdown. and, number two, that we should never ever, ever even discuss a default on the debt. had the majority leader simply said, i consent, a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table. why didn't he? we all know why he did not. because the majority leader embraces obamacare. i'm going to suggest to you, mr. president, that this body a little over three years ago passed obamacare. it passed it on a straight party-line vote. and in the time since it's passed, america has learned that it's not working. americans all over this country are suffering because of obamacare. it is the single biggest job killer in america. every day we're seeing more and more evidence that obamacare is
killing jobs, that it is hurting american workers who are struggling, that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part-time work 29 hours a week, that it is jacking up their health insurance premiums, and it's causing more and more people who are struggling to lose their health insurance altogether. just today "the new york times" reported that because of obamacare -- quote -- "insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers." that's today in the newspaper. "usa today" reported on a new -- quote -- "family glim that -- gh that could cause up to a half million children to go without insurance coverage." a headline in "the washington post" today read -- quote -- "one week today obamacare's health care insurance exchanges not all redz did i for lunch -- not all ready for lunch."
even the labor unions are now publicly decrying it as a threat to the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class. that is in the words of organized labor. this law is hurting the american people, and it's why there is bipartisan consensus outside of washington, d.c. that we need to step up and stop it. that would be the responsible thing for senators on both sides of the aisle to do, to say the same rules should apply to hardworking american families that apply to big korplgss and ap-- big corporations and members of congress. we've seen the president unilaterally put in place exceptions for giant corporations and for congress. mr. president, i would submit hardworking american families deserve that same exception. so i think it is unfortunate that the majority leader chose to object to continuing government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the table. but i do think it is clarified
to make clear, as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown. he is willing to force even a government shutdown in order to insist that obamacare is funded. and, mr. president, that leads to the second unanimous consent request that i put forward. a simple request that every amendment on this continuing resolution be subject to 60 votes. now, mr. president, everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the united states senate. amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60-vote thresholds. indeed, you and i will both recall just a few months ago when this body was debating the issue of guns, a contentious issue, emotional issue, an issue of great moment to this country. the majority leader agreed with the minority that every vote on
this floor would be subject to a 60-vote threshold. those are the terms to which every aspect on the tkpw-bt -- gun debate was amended. the grassley-cruz amendment was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns. it put real teeth into forcing states to report mental health records so that we could prevent those with serious mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms. and i would note, mr. president, that the grassley-cruz bill received a majority vote in this institution. a majority of senators voted for it, including nine democrats. it was the most comprehensive -- it was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive gun legislation voted on in this body. and yet, it did not pass into law because the majority leader set a 60-vote threshold for every amendment.
i would suggest that obamacare is no less important. obamacare is no less controversial. and obamacare likewise should be subject to the same threshold. if the majority leader believes obamacare is good for america, if the democrats in this body believe obamacare is good for america, then i would encourage this body let's debate not in the artificial sense in which we debate one or two senators talking to an empty hall, but in the real sense of making the case to each other and the american people about whether this law is working or whether it is not. because everywhere i travel in the state of texas and across the country, americans come to me and raise the single-biggest challenge they're facing is obamacare. it's killing their jobs, taking away their health care. it isn't working. now we all know that three and a half years ago obamacare was forced into law on a strict party-line vote, by straight
brute force. but it shouldn't be funded that way. that's not the way a government should proceed. that's not the way this institution should proceed. a 60-vote threshold does not require that the majority leader get a great many republican votes. but it does require that he get a few, that he cannot simply do it with the votes of only the democrats in this body. this country will be better off if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from obamacare. in fact, regarding a 60-vote threshold, here's what the led say. quote -- "for more than 200 years, the rules of the senate have protected the american people, and rightfully so. the need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate senate debate naturally frustrates the
majority and oftentimes the minority. i'm sure it will frustrate me when i assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks but i recognize this is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the senate and the american people in our country." i agree with majority leader reid. i agree that 60-vote thresholds ensure that we behave not just on a partisan matter but in a way that brings us together. and given the challenges coming from obamacare, i believe nothing is hurting the american people more, nothing is hurting the economy more, nothing is damaging jobs more than obamacare. given the majority leader's objection raised today, the path that the majority intends to go is now clear. it is clear for democrats. it is clear for republicans. it is clear for the world to see. the majority leader has stated
it is his intention to force a vote to fund obamacare and to do so using just 51 votes, to do so on what could be a straight party-line vote, and in all likelihood would be a straight party-line vote. mr. president, i would suggest that is not a responsible course of action. and it's not a course of action that i think republicans should acquiesce to. if it is the majority leader's intent to fund obamacare using just 51 votes, then i would submit to every republican in this body it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding obamacare with just 51 votes. any member of this body that votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund
obamacare on 51 votes. i think that vote's a mistake. i think that vote disserves our constituents. i think that vote hurts the people of america. 232 members of the shourpt came together -- of the house of representatives came together and said explicitly do not fund obamacare. i would note that included two democrats who came together with their republicans in a bipartisan manner to say this law isn't working. maybe we thought it would work, but the facts, the evidence have proven that it is not working. the senate should do likewise. the house acted last week because the house listened to the american people. and, mr. president, i would suggest that every member of this body should do exactly the same thing. listen to the american people because if we listen to the american people, we will, number one, keep the government running. i wish the majority leader had agreed to my request to take a government shutdown off the table by passing the house
continuing resolution. if we listen to the american people, we will, number two, take any default on the debt off the table. i wish the majority leader had not objected to doing so right now. i wish the majority leader had not said he intends to continue to use the threat of a default to engage in brinksmanship to try to force kpwoerpl on the american people -- to try to force obamacare on the american people. and if we listen to the american people, we will recognize that this law is not working. that is why big corporations asked for and received an exception. that is why members of congress asked for and received an exception. that is why unions have just recently come forward and asked for an exception. they have not yet been granted. but i'll venture a prediction now which if congress votes to continue funding obamacare, that
union exemption will not be far away. and then we will be left in a world where the burdens of obamacare, the job-killing consequences of obamacare fall just on hardworking american families. not on big corporations. not on members of congress. and in the near future i predict not on union bosses. only on hardworking american families, on single moms, on young people and people struggling to climb the economic ladder. mr. president, i would suggest that's getting it exactly backwards. this body should be not, be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class, for those with power and privilege. we should be fighting for those who are struggling. and those are the people that are getting hurt the most by obamacare. i believe this week will be a critical week for the united states senate where every one of us -- and i hope to see republicans and democrats stand together and to say setting aside partisan differences, we
have an obligation to the people of our states. and obamacare isn't working. and so we're going to step forward and recognize the simple reality that it's the biggest job killer in this country, and we should not affirmatively fund it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended and i be allowed to speak to the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: on september 11 we came together as a country on the national day of service and remembrance to honor those lives lost on that tragic day 12 years ago and celebrated the bravery and commitment of our men and women in uniform. as our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continue to defend our freedom abroad americans back home have also been stepping forward to serve their communities and country. last week brought the 20th anniversary of the signing of legislation that created americorps. with that occasion in pipeline i
rise to speak in honor of the men and women in civilian national service who sacrifice their time and energy to serve our country by strengthening our communities. we honor them for their commitment and hold them as shining examples for rising generations. over the last two decades, more than 820,000 americorps members have quietly and selflessly given this total more than one billion hours of service to our country. in arizona alone, more than 15,000 residents have served more than 16 million hours and have earned education awards totaling nearly $37 million. they have meantorred and tiewtorred school children, helping students stay on track with their education and have a chance at a better fiewvment they have helped communities recover from devastating natural disasters, supported military families and helped veterans
overcome the stress stress of a decade of conflict and reintegrate back into civilian life. they've worked in our national parks and on our public lands that preserve the story of america for future generations and so much more. for their dedication and service they receive a modest living allowance and an education award that can keep the dream of a college education within reach. they've also earned my respect and the admiration of citizens around the country. as we reflect on the dedication of those who have served, we must also ask ourselves what more can we do to give more young americans the opportunity to follow in their footsteps. as the frank lynne project as the aspen institute as hauled for we should make a year of national service, military or service, a rite of passage for all young americans. we should expand americorps
service positions as we called for in the bipartisan serve america act that we passed nearly five years ago. we should strengthen partnerships with federal departments and agencies to use national service as a cost-effective strategy to meet their missions. and we should work with the private sector from corporations and philanthropic organizations to higher education and faith-based institutions to support the creation of service opportunities and to recognize the contributions of those who serve. we should also continue to remain engaged throughout the world by among other things, fulfilling the promise of the peace corps. at its founding america started with a grand notion, the recognition that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights that must be protected. recognizing that there are those among us in common causes
greater than our own self-interest that require our attention and care the declaration of independence also emphasized we mutually pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. benjamin, frankly, talked about -- benjamin franklin talked about creating a republic if we can keep it and created a corps through which citizens can serve their community. john adams spoke about how the duty to serve our country ended but with our lives. throughout history presidents from both parties put into place initiatives that put our people into productive service to our nation. examples include franklin roosevelt's civilian conservation corps, john kennedy's peace corps, richard nixon's senior corps, george h.w. bush's points of light, bill clinton's americorps, george w. bush's freedom corps,
and more recently, the passage of the serve america act which reauthorizes and expands national service programs. today congress should step up. with so much division and discord throughout the country today, national service can help bring our country closer together. drawing from lessons learned from the programs of the past, a renewed commitment to national service by this body can unleash the ingenuity of the american people and their desire to contribute to causes greater than themselves. it can channel the energy of the institutions of civil society, all to get our country moving again. think of it ... passionate, engaged young people from all backgrounds and regions across the nation tackling our toughest challenges in education, poverty, conservation, health, disaster response, reintegrating veterans and more in a truly
enduring way. in my view, nothing else binds us better and has us move forward as a nation more effectively than service to our nation, particularly service designed to improve lives and strengthen communities. for this reason, my vision for civilian national service is worth more than our aspirations. it deserves our commitment to achieving it. i thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrr utah. mr. lee: i ask consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president -- mr. president, on friday a unified house republican
conference sent a strong message to the american people: let's keep the government open and let's protect the american people simultaneously from the harmful and potentially devastating effects of obamacare. it's now time for the senate to act. we know the president's health care law is not ready to implement. "the wall street journal" recently reported that the government software that runs the online insurance marketplaces known as exchanges simply are not ready. they can't reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage. now, if in the case of this -- and the other aspects of the law that are not ready, many of them by the president's own at mission -- if the administration goes ahead with this law anyway, we know that obamacare will be implemented in a manner than man i guestly unfor and it's likely
to harm hardworking americans. big business, unions, and other special interests may well all receive special treatment under obamacare while the rest of the country will be forced into obamacare's unfair, unworkable, and fundamentally unsound system. we know that the law is unaffordable. we know that it will be bad for the economy. at a time when we're running annual deficits approaching $1 trillion, obamacare is going to cost roughly $2 trillion over the next ten years. the law is forcing employers to shed workers, to cut back hours, and stop providing health insurance for employees. and we know that it's not going to work. the congressional budget office recently concluded that after ten years of obamacare, 31 million americans will still lack health insurance. we understand that these are inconvenient facts for the
president and for members of this body who still support this law. but those are the facts, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. how many more people will have to lose their jobs, wages, and health care benefits before congress acts? how many more states will have to announce that premiums are going up before we do something to protect the country? if the president won't act to protect the american people from this law and its harmful effects, congress should. and so last friday a unified house -- republican house showed tremendous courage in enacting legislation, knowing full well what the media would say, what the president would say, and what democrats on both sides of the capitol would say. 228 republicans responded to the will of the american people and overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fund government and protect the country from
obamacare. only one party has voted to fund the government. only one party has voted to avoid a government shutdown. and right now the ball is in the senate's court. now, once the ball has reached the senate, as has now happened, the senate can respond this one of several ways. basically, i see three options on the table, two of which are perfectly appropriate, one of which is unacceptable. the first option would be for this body, under the leadership of our majority leader, to take up a vote on this bill, the house-passed continuing resolution. the house-passed continuing resolution that keeps government funded but defunds obamacare and to give that an up-or-down vote, to vote on that bill as is without any modification. the second approach would be to open it up for an open amendment process, to allow us to debate
and discuss and consider amendments on the house-passed bill, as each individual senator might deem appropriate for this body to consider. both of these first two options are appropriate. both of those first two options are understandable and acceptable under the totality of the circumstances. some might naturally lean toward the first option, just moving quickly to consideration of the house-passed bill in as-is condition, given the fact that we are t-minus hours until the existing resolution expires on midnight of the evening -- next monday night, we're just a little over seven days before that continuing resolution expires, and so under those circumstances, many of us might suggest that the best option might be to take that first approach and for the senate to open this up for a vote on the house-passed continuing resolution in as-is condition.
but, if this body doesn't want do that, if it wants to amend the house-passed continuing resolution, it would still be appropriate for us to have an amendment process, but that needs to be an open amendment process, one that is appropriate for this body, a body that many have described as the world's greatest deliberative body. if in fact it is great and deliberative, if in fact we want to continue this tradition, then we need to have an open amendment process when amendments are considered. the third option that i referred to, the option that i would consider unacceptable, would be an option in which the majority leader would use a procedural trick to allow the majority party to gut the house-passed continuing resolution, removing its single most significant provision without allowing even consideration of one single additional amendment. this is not okay.
so what i'm saying is, we need to either pass the bill as is, pass it or don't pass it; or we need to open up the amendment process so that all members of this body have the opportunity to introduce and vote on amendments, as each individual senator deems appropriate. and those are the only two acceptable options. it would not be an acceptable option if the majority leader were to descried t decide to usa procedural trick to allow only one amendment, an amendment that would gut the house-passed continuing resolution, and effectively ne negate its single most distinguishable provision. now, the question that leaves us with is that once this bill comes up in this body, will we, as united states senators, be courageous? will we do the right thing for the american people? or will senate democrats threaten to shut down the government in order to protect an ill-conceived, unworkable,
unaffordable, and fundamentally unfair law? there's no doubt that many voices will say that we can't win this fight. but i'm not so sure. two months ago these same voices said that we could not and would not get this far. they said that this effort would amount to bad politics. they said that this simply would not work in the congress as it exists in 2013. and they were wrong. they were wrong because what the house of representatives passed on friday is what the american people have been demanding. they've been demanding it overwhelmingly. they've demanded that congress act to keep the government open and functioning while protecting the american people from the harmful, potentially devastating effects of obamacare. and that's why i believe we can win. the senate majority may have the upper hand, but the american people will and always must have
be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 195, h.j. res. 59, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows. reid of nevada, mikulski, levin, leahy, warren, schumer, durbin, coons, murphy, markey, kaine, king, cardin, gillibrand. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without
objection. mr. reid: i now ask we have a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1412. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1412, an act to improve and increase the availability of on-job training and apprenticeship programs and so forth and for other purposes the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the sanders substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times and passed, the sanders title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, tomorrow we're going to come in, i'll ask consent in a little bit. we'll come in at 10:00 tomorrow
morning. there will be a speech by me and senator mcconnell. and we have a vote at 11:45. as i recall ... tomorrow afternoon senator mikulski is going to, after we have our conferences -- plural -- she is going to be recognized for 20 minutes. following her remarks senator cruz be recognized. so i'm happy to listen to these two senators. the place i'm in now, mr. president, that we're on automatic pilot. cloture, i filed the cloture petition, so cloture will occur wednesday, the latest it will be
at noon. with some agreement we can move it up an hour or two. and people can talk all they want. there's no way that we can be prevented from having that vote. we'll have conversation. but it's not -- there won't be any filibusters because this is under the rules of the time for talking. but it doesn't delay anything. so, mr. president, as i indicated today earlier with a conversation i had with a republican senator, just follow the rules. whatever the rules are we'll follow them and do the best we can to make sure we're as fair to everyone as possible. mr. president, i ask consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 tomorrow morning, september 24, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. that following leader remarks the senate be in a period of
morning business until 11:15 a.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half, the majority the final half. that following that morning business the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 203, which is the nomination of todd hughes to be united states circuit judge for the federal circuit. that's been accomplished under -- that will be accomplished under a previous order. following the disposition of the hughes nomination the senate will recess until 2:15 tomorrow to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. at 2:15 senator mikulski be recognized for 15 minutes. following her remarks senator cruz be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be a roll call vote at 11:45 on confirmation of hughes. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned
persuasive. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: the first unanimous consent request that i would put consent request that i would put earlier today texas senator senator ted cruz asked that the senate passed the cruise bill. senate majority leader harry reid objected to that request and to a request from senator cruz that any amendments to the
house bill require 60 votes. here is their exchange. >> i ask unanimous consent of the request i put forward mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate agree to the motion to proceed to hj res 59 that no debate amendments or motion to the resolution be in order that any and all points of order be waived, that the resolution be read a third time and past passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered maiden laid upon the table without intervening action. >> i understand the senator from texas asks consent to pass the containing resolution by consent without any amendments. as i said he got right to the point. the house passed resolution as we know now would defund obamacare. it would block the administration of the program but all related methods as well and that's on board. second it includes so-called
debt prayer decision language or what has been called the pay china first policy so it would leave us vulnerable teed default on our obligations to everyone else besides bondholders and social security everyone from small businesses to federal employees contractors. it's not going to become law anyway and i object. >> objection is heard. >> mr. president unanimous request that i would put forward mr. president i ask unanimous consent the senate agree to the motion to proceed to hj res 59 that any and all points of order be waived consideration of hj res 59 adoption of any amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold and that upon disposition of all amendments the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without any
intervening action or debate. >> mr. president? >> is there objection? >> reserving the right to object i understand the senator from texas and his request which would create a new 60 vote hurdle for the senate rules do not require one at the present time. mr. president i really try to follow the senate rules. sometimes they are obnoxious and i wish they were different but i try my best in leading us in this dump difficult senate sometimes to adapt to the rules of exist. that is the way the presence has been developed over the years and i understand them. sometimes senators like these and sometimes they don't. i would guess that most would say senators have enough 60 vote hurdle's and the senate has enough of these really arbitrary
hurdles as it is and don't add more barriers to getting things done. mr. president we should be careful about adding new barriers. the american people are really fed up. i mean i travel the country and it's rare that i go someplace where they don't say what are you going to do to change the rules? they know what the hurdles are and how difficult they are. and i would bet the vast, vast majority of the senators democrats and republicans, would like them changed. we have tried it recently and we were able to make a little headway but not a lot so i think that most americans would rather be looking at ways to agree to work together rather than disagree and i would almost bet
although i'm not a betting man most americans would have liked to avoid shutting down the government. mr. president i know the sincerity of the senator from texas. i understand that. i disagree sincerely as he sincerely disagrees with me but i don't take away from his sincerity. having said that i'm in a position now to object and i must do that. >> objection is heard. the senator from texas. >> i have been asked to do a brief unanimous consent request. i have only one consent request for the committee in the session. it has my approval and that of senator mcconnell. i would ask consent that this request they agree to and printed in the record. >> is there objection? >> without objection.
>> mr. president? >> the senator from texas. >> i ask at this point without unanimous consent that i be allowed 20 minutes to speak. >> without objection. >> mr. present these two inanimate consent request have the virtue of being clarifying, clarifying what this debate is that the senate will face this week and i'm going to suggest to mr. president the senate has not raced a more important debate in the short time that you and i have both served in this institution. no american wants a government shutdown. i don't want a government shut down. no one on the side of of the aisle once a government shutdown. the house of representatives doesn't want a government shutdown. disturbed president five minutes ago the senate could have asks to prevent a government shutdown. the request i promulgated to the majority leader was to pass continuing resolution of the house of representatives and if that had happened there would be
no government shutdown. a government shutdown would be taken off the table. the specter that you and i see on the television screen every day the countdown clock that has started to appear would disappear but unfortunately the majority leader chose to object, to object into say no. he would rather risk a government shutdown then act to prevent it. again the majority leader was quite candid. because he supports the law called obamacare. i would note one of the pieces the house of representatives passed was a law that has been called the default prevention act. the president of the united states has been doing a fair amount of public speaking raising the prospect of the default on our dead and the house of representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say the united states will never ever ever default on its debt.
in the events the debt ceiling is not raised we will always pay our debts first. i suspect every member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt. i think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name taking a default off the table. i think that's unfortunate. there is a tendency in this town towards rinks and ship, towards pointing to events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using that to try to get your way. i wish the majority leader had been willing to step oregon to say i agree number one is the government should be funded. we should not have a government shut down an number two that we should never ever ever even discussed a default on the debt. have the majority leader said i consent a default on the debt
would have been taken permanently off the table. why didn't he? we all know why he did not exist the majority leader embraces obamacare. i'm going to suggest to you mr. president that this body a little over three years ago passed obamacare. pass it on a straight partyline vote and in the time since it has passed america has learned that it is not working. the americans all over this country are suffering because of obamacare. it's the single biggest job killer in america. every day we are seeing more and more evidence that obamacare is killing jobs and it is hurting american workers who are struggling and it's causing people to be forcibly put into part-time work 29 hours a week and it's jacking up up their health-insurance premiums and causing more and more people who are struggling to lose their health insurance altogether. just today "the new york times" reported that because of obamacare quote insurers are significantly limited in their
choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers. that's today in the newspaper. "usa today" reported on a new quote family glitch that could cause up to a half-million children to go without insurance coverage. a headline in the "washington post" today red quote one week away obamacare small-business insurance exchanges not already for lunch. and even the labor unions that once championed obamacare are now publicly decrying it as a threat to the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class. that is in the words of organized labor. this law is hurting the american people and it's why there is bipartisan consensus outside of washington d.c.. we need to step up and stop it. that would be the responsible thing for senators on both sides of the aisle to do, to say the same rules should apply to
hard-working american families that applies to big corporations and that apply to members of congress. we have seen the president unilaterally put in place -- i would submit hard-working american families deserve that same. i think it is unfortunate that the majority leader chose to object to continuing government to preventing a shutdown, to taking default off the table but i do think it's clarifying to make clear as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown. he is willing to force the event a government shutdown in order to insist that obamacare is funded. mr. president that leads to the second unanimous consent request that i put forward. a simple request that every amendment on this continuing
resolution is subject to 60 amendments. everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the united states senate. amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60 vote threshold's. and indeed you and i will both recall just a few months ago when this body was debating the issue of guns come for a contentious issue an emotional issue and an issue of great moments in this country. the majority leader agreed with the minority that every single amendment on the floor with the subject to a 60 vote threshold. those were the terms under which every aspect was debated. i would note one amendment that was submitted was the grassley cruz amendment. amendment. it was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth and going after felons and fugitives who tried to do legally buy and put real teeth into forcing states to report mental health records so that we can prevent those with serious mental illnesses from an
illegally purchasing firearms. without mr. president the grassley-cruz bill received the majority. a majority of senators voted for it including nine democrats. it was the most comprehensive -- it was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive gun legislation voted on in this body and yet it did not pass into law because the majority leader who set a 60 vote threshold for every amendment. i would suggest that obamacare is no less important. obamacare isn't no less controversial and obamacare likewise should be subject to the same threshold. if the majority leader believes obamacare is good for america, if the democrats in the majority believes obamacare is good for america i would encourage this body lets debate. not in the artificial sense in which we debate one or two senators talking to an empty
hall but in the real sense of making a case to the american people about whether this law is working or whether it is not because everywhere i travel in the state of texas and across the country americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge they're facing an obamacare. it's killing their jobs come it's taking away their health care. it isn't working. we all know three and a half years ago obamacare is forced into law on a strict party white vote by straight brute force. but it shouldn't be funded that way. that's not the way a government should proceed. that's not the way this institution should proceed. a 60 vote threshold does not require the majority leader get a great many republican votes but it does require that they get a few. they cannot simply do it with the votes of only the democrats in this body. this country will be better off
if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from obamacare. in fact, regarding the 60 vote threshold here is what they learned majority leaders had to say. quote, for more than 200 years the rules of the senate have protected the american people and rightfully so. the need to muster 60 votes in order to his terminateterminate s in a debate nacht the frustration majority and oftentimes the minority. i am sure it will frustrate me when i'd assume the job of majority leader in a few weeks but i recognize this requirement is a tool that serve the long-term interest of the senate and the american people in our country. i agree with majority leader reid. i agree that 60 vote threshold to ensure that we behave not just on a partisan matter but in a way that brings us together and given the challenges coming
from obamacare i believe nothing is hurting the american people more. nothing is hurting the economy more. nothing is damaging jobs more than obamacare. given the majority leaders objection raised today, the path of the majority and tends to go is now clear. it's clear for democrats and it's clear for republicans. it is clear for the world to see. the majority leader has stated his intention to force a vote to fund obamacare and to do so using just 51 votes. to do so on what could be a straight partyline vote and in all likelihood would be a straight partyline vote. mr. president i would suggest that is not a responsible course of action and it's not a course of action that i think republicans should acquiesce to.
if it is the majority leader's intent to fund obamacare using just 51 votes then i would submit to every republican in this body it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding obamacare with just 51 votes. any member of this body that votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to aloud the majority leader to fund obamacare on 51 votes. i think that both the same mistake. i think that both hurts the people of america. 232 members of the house of representatives came together and said explicitly do not fund obamacare. i would note that included two democrats who came together together with their republicans in a bipartisan manner to say this law ain't working. maybe we thought it would work
but the facts and the evidence have proven that it is not working. the senate should do likewise. the house acted last week as the house listen to the american people and mr. president i would suggest every member of this body should do exactly the same thing. listen to the american people because if we listen to the american people, we will number one keep the government running. i wish the majority leader had agreed to my request to take the government shutdown off the table by passing the house continuing resolution. if we listen to the american people we will number to take any defaults of the debt off the table rate at which the majority leader had not objected to doing so right now. i wish the majority leader had not said he intends to continue to use the threat of the default to engage in brinksmanship, to try to force obamacare on the
american people. if we listen to the american people we will recognize that this law is not working. that is why big corporations ask for and receive -- that is why members of congress asked for and received an inception. that is why unions have just recently come forward and asked for an exception. they have not yet been granted that i will venture a prediction now which if congress votes to continue with fun doing -- funding obamacare that exemption will not be far away. then we will be left in a world where the burdens of obamacare, the job-killing consequences of obamacare falls not on big corporations, no for members of congress and in the near future i predict not on union bosses, only on hard-working american families single moms and young
people and people struggling to climb the economic ladder. mr. president i would suggest that's getting it exactly backward. this body should not be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class for those with power and privilege. we should be fighting for those who are struggling and those are the people that are being hurt the most by obamacare. i believe this week will be a critical week for the united states senate. senate. everyone of us and i hope to see republicans and democrats stand together and to say setting aside partisan differences we have an obligation to the people of our state's. obamacare isn't working so we are going to step forward and recognize the simple reality that it's the biggest job killer in this country and we should not affirmatively fund it. mr. president i yield the floor. >> broadband is the service for
not only our members but when you look at the cable industry in general the cable industry has done such a tremendoutremendou s job of deploying broadband all over urban small-market trimm areas where our members live and work and it really has made the difference. as we look ahead we see that our members businesses and their future is the broadband business. when you look at the services that they provide great today we provide voice video internet services as well but more broadband is really the key and most of our members areas they say the speed and capacity and the demand for broad and in their markets is doubling every two years. the administrator of the medicare and medicaid programs will be speaking tomorrow to a conference hosted by the trade association for private health
insurance companies. that will start at 8:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. she also said the sequester budget cuts are hurting the economy. imf managing director christine lagarde made the remarks last week at the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. i am tom donohue president and chief executive officer of the united states chamber of commerce and i would like to welcome and thank you for coming today. today is the first time in 20 years that the managing director of the imf has addressed the chamber of commerce of the united states and it couldn't be a better person than christine lagarde to do that. that is far too long a time especially given the growing importance of the imf in
stabilizing and strengthening the global economy. the fund has years of experience in coming to the rescue of smaller emerging economies and regions. its actions during the 2008 economic crisis and the aftermath that continues to follow us have proven to be very valuable. the imf impacts business from wall street to main street and across the globe. it's important for the imf and its leaders to have regular conversations with members of the business community and that's why we are so pleased that christine is with us today. i have known her since her days as a lawyer in chicago at bacon and i can see. we have followed her to the trade job and finance ministry in france and we cheered when
she came back to the international monetary fund. she quickly rose through the ranks of her law firm to become the first female chairman in 2005 she joined the french government which to me is one of the great challenges of the world as minister of foreign trade and in 2007 she became the first woman to hold the post of minister of finance and economy in the g7 country. in 2011 she was named to this important and present decision. she has an extraordinary combination of skills and experiences that are needed to lead the fund through this very trying period. she is an excellent listener. she appreciates different perspectives. she is a diplomat. she is taller and, sometimes and
makes tough calls whenever it's necessary. under her leadership she has helped save the euro. sheshe has propped up struggling economies on every continent and provided stability and good judgment in turbulent times. that make a powerful case not only for christine's extraordinary leadership but for the importance of the imf and for the need for it to be appropriately funded. it's also called for a very important role in the future for the imf and the direction in which it's going to go. this is an issue on which we pledge the support of the business community. there is no question that the chamber and our partners and other major economies must provide viable input to this organization and to their
decisions but if we are going to provide input we have to provide support. the chamber will work with our colleagues in the coalition of business federations some of whom are here today, to advance the dialogue with the imf. during christine's ten-year, she has had to deal with a major financial crisis. a global economic slowdown and the countries drowning in debt not to mention nations with very differing agendas. how does one prepare for that? i think christine's time on france's national synchronized swimming team is the best training. think about it. it involves being underwater upside down and trying to coordinate consequence movements with numerous teammates to produce a desired result.
sounds like a typical day at the imf. ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming imf managing director christine lagarde. [applause] >> thank you so much tom. there is only one thing you forgot. you have to do all of that while holding your breath. [laughter] good afternoon to all of you. i would like to thank the chamber and in particular tom donohue for hosting me today. it's easy to be impressed by tom's time as head of the chamber and his steady guiding new members to the new crisis and in previous times as well. i am a big fan of tom. as you said tom we go back a long way. we have quite a few issues that
we are particularly keen about him, and one of which is certainly the protection of intellectual property rights. you would expect that from a former lawyer but what you wouldn't expect is that we'll show shared a serious dislike for class-action. this is an exquisite venue by the way. i am most impressed by the flags and i'm always impressed by the flags. the first day when i walked into the imf -- thank you for being here. you're the executive director for the united states of america sitting on the board of the institution. the first thing that you see when you walk into the imf is the flags. i hear you clearly. you must have 50 flags. they represent the states. when i walked into the imf back in 2011 there were 187 soon to be 188 flags.
i don't know if it does that to you, of tom but when i walk into the building and i see the flags it reminds me of our responsibility, of our accountability and of the membership we serve. i frankly believe that the chamber and the imf have in common the duty to serve. the duty to serve their community. the duty to serve their membership. a membership is the world. 188 members short of the total community, short of a handful of new members. one day maybe but certainly we owe them that accountability that i referred to. we also have similar object gives. commitment to expand economic growth, a belief in human potential, a design to ensure that the right conditions are in place for private enterprises to fulfill their potential and be
an engine for growth as well as for creation of jobs. this is certainly a purpose that we share since our articles actually dictate us to work precisely on economic and financial stability. so i highly value the privilege of have given me time to engage with the world of business. you have your finger on the pulse of the economy. to a great extent it is through your efforts that growth is created and that jobs are created. it might surprise you to learn that american opportunity and enterprises have been a huge part of my life. i have spent 25 years of my professional life working as a lawyer first and specifically as chairman of baker mckenzie so for those 25 years i was very much in touch with actually many
of your general counselors. your european general counselors when you are already global and through them and through you i have been able to better understand the dynamics of business, the imperatives of business. when i was later appointed by my 600 partners as chairman of the firm i had to deal with the imperatives, but the challenges the opportunities of a leader in the industry at the time. that was clearly moving into the global arena and trying to keep the lead. and it is that interplay between the global economy and the united states economy that i would like to focus today. in a world of increasing economic interconnections the challenges facing the united states and all of us are greater but so too are the opportunities. the question is how we can best come together business leaders,
policymakers, other stakeholders in your organizations, labor representatives as well to find the solutions that we need to secure a lasting balance and widely shared growth which is a precondition for economic and financial stability. in that context i would like to touch on three issues. first of all i would like to touch on the global outlook. second the role of the united states economy in our interconnected world and the third why the imf matters for the global economy and for the united states. let me deal with the state of the world and the global economy as we see it today. some of you have just returned from the g20 in st. petersburg and so have i. going into the summit many were anticipating and the media was certainly planning for that, a
clear divide between the advanced economies that it's that have been recently been placed in conventional monetary policies and the emerging market economies we have seen lately particularly post-may 22 and outflow of capital sent there for volatility and uncertainty in their markets. the fate of the tapering of unp and its consequences around the world were very much the center of the debate. instead of to the five and hostility that was hoped for by the media well, we saw constructive discussions. g20 members recognize the need to ensure that exit from this exceptional monetary policies when it comes should be orderly and clearly communicated. equally on the other side there
was a clear recognition that there were particularly domestic issues that have to be addressed and that were to be addressed by the emerging market authorities themselves. so a balanced outcome and certainly consideration for both sides by both sides. on the occasion of the st. petersburg g20 meeting i had the opportunity to also sit with the b-20 representatives. you were there and a few colleagues as well as the equivalent of the b-20 that business leaders at the 20 economies. it stands for the labor of leaders. i have to say they their consecutive presentations at the joint meeting with the heads of states was a clear indication of how unneeded is the cooperation between business leaders, labor
leaders and between policymakers. the summit took place in the context of challenging and changing global economic environment. the imf will soon give its updated forecast. we will be doing that only have our annual meetings about two weeks from now. but let me say that while we are seeing some signs of recovery, global growth remains sub dude. but the story is more complex. five or six months ago we were talking about a three speed recovery. it's getting a bit more complex than just three speeds. there seem to be multiple speeds at work in a multiple series of transitions. we have also -- we also know that the fruit of growth are far from being shared
widely and this is true for the united states in its true for many countries am around the world and it leads to potential risks of instability. now, focusing on the various groups. certainly today to the constant economies the u.s. japan and europe predominately but also australia and new zealand and canada and a few others, are in a better place than they were six months ago. we see that with growth picking up here in the united states combat a point that i will come back two and a little while. we also see that in the euro area which is beginning to exit from recession. it's beginning to grow. a lot still needs to be done. we are also seeing that in japan where there is a mix of theory theory -- policies both monetary fiscally and from the structural reform point of view the economic
policies and we certainly hope the three arrows will help do that. if we look at the emergence and economy markets that is where we have seen the most changes in the recent weeks. about six months ago we said that the emerging market economies were in the lead and were driving growth. this is still the case. they are still driving growth and they will continue to be the drivers of growth for a long time to come. but that growth movement has slowed down. the dynamics have certainly been affected by the monetary policies or the fear of monetary policy or the perception of the fear of monetary policy. that is how complicated the world can be on occasions. in that group -- that is what i am saying the three speed grew. in that group some of the countries have fared better through that slow down of the
growth momentum because their fundamentals and set of policies were stronger and supplied financial markets to better support them. all of that is vastly interconnected and we'll talk about growth and interconnectedness and i certainly came to appreciate that when i was as you mentioned tom, minister of trade in france. but if there is one thing that has really struck me the most since i joined the imf, it is how strong and how fast those interconnectedness function. just a few examples by way of numbers. and some of you are familiar with that as you participate in the process. since 1980 the volume of world trade has increased fivefold. world exports related to output
grew from 20% in 1995, to 30% in 2008. to almost collapsed at the time of the great recession to pick up again somewhat. there has also been the rapid acceleration of financial integration. by the time of the crisis -- you can decide words -- whether it's 2007 or 2008 but for the purpose of this conference is 2008. global capital flows were nearly triple in 1995. the imf's recent spillover and alice is. spillovers what we study that happens in other countries as a result of policies decided in one particular country -- that study reinforces the importance of interconnectedness. it suggests for example that if the world's five major economies were to work together to adopt a more rigorous, a more
comprehensive and more compatible set of policies it would increase global gdp by about 3% over the long run. and we all have a stake in these interconnections. what happens elsewhere in the world? >> at the success of their covering europe or the continued smooth functioning of the supply chain in asia increasingly in in the united states and the converse is true, what happens happens here matters increasingly for the global economy and that takes me to my second which is the role of the united states in the global economy. a critical role. a critical role of american business in particular. the recovery gaining strength here in this country is obviously good news for the united states but it's also good news for the rest of the world. admittedly u.s. growth will be a little bit more modest than what
one would have hoped. still below 2% but even so it will accelerate in our view significantly next year by about one percentage point related to the baseline that we will come out within 2013 and that is caused by the relatively limited effect of fiscal drag on growth next year. indeed the fundamentals of the u.s. economy have been included -- improving gradually. households are in better shape. they have lowered their debt benefited from the recovery in the house crisis as well as in the strong performance of the stock markets. the housing sector is looking brighter. still potential for construction activity to pick up further and obviously you have to be much more detailed and
differentiating between residential, commercial and other types of housing set your. the private sector is moving to be the primary growth in and the primary engine of growth and job creation and the main reason for weak growth this year the one that we regret has not taken place is really caused by the very large ongoing fiscal adjustment and the thing that i've will come back to in a minute when i tell you what we think would help the u.s. economy pick up in the coming months. job creation is obviously a key and gradient of any economic recovery whether it's domestic or whether it is global. the latest u.s. jobs data presented a mixed picture and while the unemployment rate has declined to 7.3% in august the participation rate has also continued to decline. unemployment remains well below
the crisis level so the issue of jobs even in this country where the numbers are pretty good compared to let's say. >> or greece or a few other countries in europe, the issue of growth is still very much on the table. there are increasingly whether it's jobs or growth important components of what the imf focuses on. we are not just about fiscal. we are not economists that's for sure but we also focus on issues such as growth and jobs. i know that is very much on your mind here at at the chamber. business including the people around those tables come to each of you, you play a key role. at the same time and matter where you stand on the political chest plate we all have to knowledge that policymakers play also a key role in order to organize an environment that is
actually conducive to business that will not hamper business that will facilitate it where jobs can be created, where citizens can express their worth. what should the u.s. policymakers do in the view of the imf? like me give you three of ulla points of what we think should be done. first of all the united states economy should fix its public finances. i have often been quoted saying hasten slowly which means slow down but hurry up. slow down because our analysis is that the fiscal contraction that is happening at the moment in this blunt way caused by sequestration among other things is excessive and slow down. don't put the brakes on this beginning of the recovery. that is the slowdown peace.
but hurry up because now we have to take measures that deal with entitlement, that deal with the entitlement programs that will weigh on the u.s. economy if nothing is done now. so, hasten slowly. slow down, don't frontload and make sure you put in place those measures that will actually anchor the medium-temedium-te rm plan that will be credible for all. in addition, to i hasten to add the uncertainty surrounding the budget, the debt ceiling is certainly not conducive to clarity, to confidence and to stability. i know that this is a view that is heard by the u.s. chamber of
commerce. so fix the public finance with that subtle approach of hastening slowly and dealing with entitlement going forward and higher revenue that will be needed as well. second, appropriately calibrated monetary policy. irrespective of what has been cited yesterday opposition has been that the exit from unconventional monetary policies that were needed and helpful for the recovery of the economy should be gradual, should be linked to progress in the recovery and employment documented by data and it should he clearly communicated in a dialogue with other act years of the monetary policies. third, finished reforming the financial or. there has been lots of progress on the agenda.
for example the new capital illiquidity and basel iii. but the system is still not safe enough and some of the players are just getting bigger. policymakers need to turn their attention to the outstanding danger zones especially the shadow banking system that has grown over the last five years, no doubt about its, and the derivatives which need to fall under the appropriate supervision and regulation with adequate transparency. the ultimate goal is clear conflict to have a financial system that is less prone to instability and better able to serve the real economy. financial form are not just the sole and exclusive responsibility of the united states of america. it's a matter that concerns all countries and where there has to
america's global financial ties are even deeper when you look at the financial sector. foreign banks hold about $5.5 trlt of u.s. assets. while american banks hold about $3 trillion of foreign claims. meanwhile, close to half of the smp500 sales originate from foreign operation. i know, some of you are in that position. probably more than 50%. the connections have a great benefit for the united states economy, they are not without implement the law risk. we have seen it during the crisis. we remember five years ago how the collapse of one u.s. bank in harsh new reality across sectors, across countries, and across the world. and trouble across the atlantic
they revealed a shortfall from the weaknesses, and tensions in europe. speaking of europe, considering that 20% of u.s. exports are to europe and that more than half of u.s. assets are held in europe. clearly everybody in this room would have a stake in the european recovery. yet despite those risks and those hoops, i know you are deeply aware of how much can be gained in engaging with the rest of the world. i'm going quote president taft who helped establish the chamber. i think he capture it is well when he said i'm in favor of helping the prosperity of all country. when we are all prosperous, the trade with each becomes more valuable to the other. i would venture to quote -- he dates a little bit more back
but he used to say drsh speaking in foreign language] >> when there is trade, there is good order. and clearly the purpose that you're pursuing is an expression of that good order of things that can derive from economic trade relationship. what was true in his day, in their days, is even more true in today's interconnected world with strong u.s. economy and strong global economy are effectively two sides of the same coin. now where does the imf come in this whole picture i tried to depict for you? the imf is an important player for the global membership. but it's also an important player for the united states of america. the united states of america is actually my largest shareholder
and obviously a founding father of the united states -- the imf. i'm saying a father because it was two bhen who started the initiative of the imf. i spoke at the beginning of my feature about the broad goal of the imf and the broad goal of the chamber and how we share a lot in that respect. we have something else in common. in 18914, on the eve of world war i, the chambers' first president said the following: this is a new day when our methods are being reorganized and the organized forces of labor and agriculture and of commerce meet here in washington not for war but for peace. in very much the same way the imf was born out of the ashes of the great depression and not world war i, but world war ii.
and there grounded on the principles of good global citizenship. if countries work together to serve a common purpose, everybody wins. who were the imf founders? well, one of them was a brit, john maynard cane. the another the other one was a american harry dexter white. they had a plan. they argued they too participated. when you look at the the archive and see how unfliewcial they were. you can tell how they lead the exercise very much and exhibited significant intellectual to the formation of the imf. they had a vision of a global economy club where countries could corporate with a clear objective global economy and financial stability. and like a credit union for the world, don't forget it was right
after second world war, there was massive reconstruction needed on the ground. so like a credit union for the world, the imf member countries pool resources that can provide a last line to members in need. in fact, the first country that used the resources provided by that credit union to which it participated was my own country, france. and it moved around the world. so for those who believe that the imf is only for low-income countries and is eventually active in some remote colony of africa. not at all. it goes around the globe as economic crisis go around the globe. predominantly in europe at the early stage. it helped enormously the newly independent countries after decolonization. when the berlin wall fell, the france supported eastern europe efforts to transform from a centrally planned economy in to market economies.
and between the imf also helped its member to overcome economy crisis in latin america in the '80s. in asia, in the' 90s and most recent flit eurozone not to mention the arab country in transition where we are significantly involved and financially engaged under loan and program arrangements. these actions might seem far removed from what happens to your countries -- companies, business, your economy. they have a very real implications. our policy advisers, for example including in core areas like exchange rates has helped to prevent or ease the hardship of crisis around the world. that in turn reduced the possible negative fallout for the u.s. and all economies. and as the member countries have changed over time, so have we.
during this crisis, the one that we have just gone through, this has meant including a significant increase in our financial support. because clearly whether you support developing countries or emerging countries, the size is relatively splawl. the size of the programs and lending programs that we have in place are relatively small. when it's a question of helping countries that are significantly developed, and gdp is large clearly the programs are bigger. while we are engaged financially in about 50 countries around the world at the moment, the bulk of our exposure is obviously to europe and to core europe. we have about 300 billion loans.
the crisis changed us. we had to change some of our tools. why we didn't have much by way of prevex tools. we had to invent instruments that actually operated not like an insurance coverage, because is not the hire iraqi of business. a credit like drawable but countries don't necessarily draw from. that is the case for instance in mexico, but also colombia or bo land. it helped them a great deal fair the crisis reasonably well. above all in our research and analysis functions we have given much greater to global connections. if anybody asked me the area of development going forward sphars we're concerned it's going to the function that we have and that is clearly competitive edge of the imf. we have deep information about
pretty much 188 countries around the world. that can help significantly identify this spillover from various policies. now clearly to be efficient we cannot just rely on the information that we have about this 188 countries. we need traction. we need to be heard, and our advise needs to be relied upon and eventually followed by implementation. this is only the case if the imf represents adequately the world and; therefore, if it's quota system is which is a little bit like the capital of your company. the issues capital. represents adequately the various countries that form the global economy. we have a governor's reform in the way at the moment. a few members that need to ratify the reform.
i hope that including the united states of america all such memberses will ratify the reform so that the imf continues to represent the world as what intended by the two founders mr. white and mr. canes. what i've tried to describe for you steady a bit of a journey. a journey that the united states and the imf have taken demand hand together. as i said the united states is a leading shareholder steadfast partner for nearly 70 years, played a key role in many terms of the institutions. we have worked together for mutual goal and global stability and shared prosperity. the chamber can play a vital role in the journey. i welcome the deep relationship that we have had and that both you and i want to deepen in order to be just of help and
service to our membership. the imf membership, as i said, we share the same purpose. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> well, in the interest of time we'll have to speak -- if you don't mind. i have collected a few questions from the audience. ly try toking a are a grate them in a few themes. first of all, five years after the crisis, how exposed the global markets are to counter stocks. in the view, is it still an overreliance on the wholesale short term financing? >> you know, five years down the road, i think that the global economy is certainly less expose the than it was and has been significant improvement, as i mentioned. particularly in the financial sector.
yet, we're not out of the woods. we're not protected from uncertainties. that was clearly the demonstrated over the last few weeks and months. and there are still, you know, a lot of hard reforms that need to be completed in order to restore a better confidence. as i mentioned a few areas and progress is still needed. >> you mentioned the -- [inaudible] china will soon be the third largest member of imf. will it change china? will it change the imf. >> it has begun to change the imf already. one of i had dpepty managing directors is from china. one of i had head department is from china. it would not have happened only five years ago. so because it is the mission, the nature of the dna of the imf to represent the world and
mirror the world, clearly emerging marnghts economies in general will impact the imf. but the, you know, i think what we should -- i should and the imf should never lose sight of the fact that the overall purpose is the good of the entire global economy. the stability of the global economy. the stability of the financial world, and, you know, we're not up for grabby one memberoe the other. we have constantly have objective of serving the global community. >> there are a number of questions about public debt. you mentioned the cost of entitlements. the economists talk about that as the longevity troisk macroeconomic stability. -- the cost of paying for long -- with the cost come the
benefits. is imf looking at the benefits of investment and -- as a potential for u growth factor? >> the benefit of longer and healthier life. well, i wish. it was both longer and healthier. that's clearly what many of you companies are working on. i know, the pharmaceutical sector is well represented of the chamber. we look in to it, in my view, we have to look more and more scientifically in to that. that, i believe, is where the interest of the imf and the quality of the able sis intersects with the input that the private sector can give us about the prospect of health care systems in general, and its impact on the macroeconomic factor that include demographic. >> there are a number of question about possible growth in global economy.
it comes down basically one question, there seems to be a succession of fads one year -- [inaudible] growth story. the next year africa is the gross story and money keeps flowing back and forth. how credible of a growth story we talk about, and what do you see growth actually coming from? >> as i said, we see growth pretty much everywhere at the moment. if you look at the sort of map of the world, there are probably just handful of countries that will be in recession in twowrtd. so growth is certainly picking up. recovery is jushtdway. at which speed, what is the momentum, who is taking turn is something that clearly varies over time. but in our mind, there no question that the very
significant percentage of growth of the global economy will be generated by the emerging market countries. does that mean that all investment should be directed to the countries? not necessarily. there are a lot of other factors taken in to account. but, you know, we've said -- we thought that probably 80% of global growth will come out of the emerging market countries in the years to come. i'm sorry. i should qualify that. emerging and developing countries. clearly, when you look at the map of the world, as i said within the highest growth percentages that we observe be it this year or next year are in countries in some of the emerging asian economies, as well as some of the low-income and developing countries of africa. >> just one last question, in the number of imf papers there
has been a reference to the importance of financial inclusion. could you spell out what that means? why is that important? >> well, it has two i dimensions. financial inclusion is clearly the ability of all consumers in a given country to access peyton manning relationships. to access financial means. and -- particularly low-income countries using innovative technology to make sure that there is a level of inclusion with the financial dimension. t clearly the case some very policies in india that have to do with the identification of people. it's the case as well with the use of cell phone and many
african countries and it's something that we support greatly and we believe is extremely important. you have the issue of inclusion in of i.t. how inclusive is a company? how good is it for stable growth? we did publish certainly one piece of research that tends to indicate that inclusive growth is supportive of more sustainable growth. that clearly means access to the job market access to the congratulation of value. which applies across gender. we have published recently a paper on access of japanese women to the narcotic clearly address some of the very serious issues that the japanese economy has been facing in terms of potential outcome. >> thank you very much. >> we'll respond to your written
questions. thank you very much. [applause] that was wonderful. you know, we call this the hall of flags. it's the history of the opening of the western world and the flag of the flag of the great explosivers. i often think that there will be halls of flags all over the world as their economies open more. and as great explorers particularly on the economic side come to help their development. so i want to thank you for coming. i want to thank you for a great presentation. i want to thank you for being a great explorerrer. [applause] thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
[inaudible conversations] is the service for not only our members. when you look at the cable industry in general. the cable industry has done such a tremendous job of deploying broadband all areas. urban areas, small markets, rural areas where our members life and work. it's made a difference. as we look ahead, we see our members businesses and their future as a broadband business. when you look at the services they provide. today, we provide voice video internet services. more broadband is really the key. in most of our member's areas, they say that the speed and the capacity and the demand for broad wand and the markets is doubling every two years.
we're at prospect garden. it's a garden ellen wilson designed. she said to the white house gardener. let's recreate the rose section of this garden at the white house. it becomes the famous rose garden at the white house. ellen tragically doesn't live to see the rose garden completed; however, she's dying in the summer of 191. she's wheeled to the space outside in the wheelchair. she doesn't see the completion for the vision of roses brooming at the white house. meet the first and second wife of woodrow wilson. tonight on c-span, c-span 3, and
c-span radio and c-span.org. the administrator of the medicare and medicaid program speaks tomorrow to the trade association for private health insurance companies. that starts at 8:45 a.m. eastern. you can watch it live on c-span2 . c-span online -- thanks, the c-span video archive and capability are treasures. the c-span video library is a great resource for you to share content any time. it's easy. here is how. go to c-span.org and go to the video library to watch the newest video got recent tab. click what you want to watch and press play. you can search the video library for a specific topic or keyword. or you can find a person just type in their name, hit search, and go to people. go the bio page and scroll downtown appearance. you can share what you're watching and make a clip.
use the set button or handle tools. add title and discrepancies and click share, send it by facebook, e-mail, or google+. searchable, easy, and free. created by the cable industry and fund bid your local cable or satellite provider. over the summer one discussion focused on the republican party and the youth vote inspect is just over half an hour. [applause] thank you, jonathan. i'm thrilled to be here with you today. a couple of quick comments about this particular panel. for my viewpoint, this is the most important thing you'll hear this weekend. it's all well and good what some of the folk in the middle of the politics of the day with the politics of the future rests with these type of individual you see here.
the under 35-type. if you're politically active. you'll know when you have a lot of republican or perspective event it's the ray so of above 40-people to blow 40 salespeople streamly disheartening. i asked them to start off with five minutes each to tell us what this generation, this new generation should tell the folks that have been around awhile to help us cement relationships to, tune up the message. be better what i'm doing. i'm an optimist. you will be too after you hear the first three of the panelists speej. charlie, we'll start with you. turning point u.s.a. [applause] >> hello. happy to be here. i call chicago home. i'm sorry for everything you had to go through with the president that we have given you. i'm not used to speaking without tell prorchter. usually in chicago i have it.
hearing the noise about detroit i can't help but think illinois and chicago is not here. i'm here to talk about young people. when i think about what happened in november, young vote went overwhelming to obama again. i reflect back and ask myself one fundamental question. and deeper part of it why did the candidates for the republican party i asked young people all the time. why didn't you vote for governor romney? why did you not support governor romney? they said how am i supposed to vote for somebody that doesn't come to the station i watch. barack obama comes, makes fun of himself a little bit. if you watch the first segment with john stewart and president obama. they make fun of the fact he lost the debate. that's what the shows are. if we don't send the candidates
there what kind of message are sending? there's one message i want to take away. taking something abstract and turning to something concrete. let's look at the in, sa scandal. it was something that almost overnight turned something extremely abstract in to something that was concrete for a younger person. let me give you an example. when snowden did what he did and released the dpowment. i'm not taunt snowden or agree or descroag. what he did was every single time a young person picked up a fen, he totally changed watt way he did. talk about the nsa, which they might not have understood something concrete overnight. how do we make that concrete? the left have has done it masterfully. your student loan interest rates will double if you vote far
republican. that's something concrete. the republicans will say we'll create more job and help the economy. that's not a winning message. how do we make something abstract to something cob crete? i'll close with one other finishing note. when people ask me, charlie, do we need to run younger candidates is that the solution? i don't necessarily subscribe to the i had. we don't need younger candidates we need better ideas. we use one simple example. i want down to the university of yl to hear ron paul speak. he was interesting. they had so many students show up to hear him speak they had to get an extra room outside the assembly hall. ron paul is 76 or 78. you team me he can get more auditorium. but that's because his ideas relate to they. if you look at the idea he believes in, it boils down one principle. it's freedom from government.
that's what it is. if you look at every single one of his stances he believes in individual liberty. aye not hear to endorse him. i'm not saying the conservative movements needs to become a conservative movement. if you look at the 78-year-old man and not particularly charismatic. able to get thousand of young people to flock after him. put lee gone behind him. we look at young people, i believe if we can make something abstract and n to something concrete and name case. you can will be free from government to live the life you choose. that's a winning message. i'm 19 years old. i'm fighting the fight every day. i go to college campuses, i debate professors and socialists. organization is doing at lough exciting things. whiff learned and taken away young people fundamentally support and love liberty. we will not only be successful in 2014 or 2016. we'll see massive shock waves in the generation to come that, yes, we can begin to win.
we losing the war right now. liberty and the fundamental premise of is electorally favorable. i look forward to the panel. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, charlie. how is that far 19-year-old looking to the future? very good. fransc,k sacks. >> hi. if you don't know what red alert is. it's a newer publication by young conservatives for young conservatives. it's own by -- right here from colorado. and we are also owned the washington examer and the weekly standards. a good line of conservative publications. and roughly a year and a half ago, we had decided that we needed something to reach tout young people. and, you know, i love the other publications we own. the weekly standards examer and let's be honest. the weekly standard isn't a what the young folks are reading. we decided we were going come to
come 0 to where the young people were. we needed something way different than conservatives had done. it need to be plugged in to social media. it needed to be funny, sometimes edgy. it needed to be something that young people, even if they were politically not necessarily associately or physically conservative would don't publication and maybe walk away more conservative or more open to republican ideas. and so we launched red alert politics. in february of 2012 so we just had our one-year and three-month anniversary the last year. so we're very excited about that. doing a lot of great things with the publication. i hope you'll check it out. redalertpolitics.com. one of the things we're most proud sufficient annual 30 under 30. i love the 30 ushtd 30 list. one complaint from the sliest, oh, why would you be a conservative and there's no young people in the republican party or in the conservative
movement? the reason we did the 30 under 30 list which shows everyone across the nation that is -- there are a lot of young people who are pro fiscal conservative who have strong, you know, socially conservative values. who are against like the outrageous government spending and whatnot. but there's not a lot of opportunities they're being highlighted in the main stream media or necessarily nationally. so one of the things we worked hard to do is highlight those people so they can now be getting on national television shows and speaking at conferences like this so question show the love. there are young people who are conservative. so that's one of the big thing we have done. i would encourage you to check it out to see other emerging young people in the movement. but for a second, i want to talk about some of the things that i noticed over the 2012 campaign trail when i was covering the campaign, and what the left was doing versus the right. how we can be a little bit more successful with attracting young
people. and that's not, again, to say we haven't been doing a better job. we closed the gap in the last election between president obama and mitt romney by a large gap. double digits for young people. we continued to close it. but we're still not doing enough. one of the biggest things is that conservatives don't do a very good job going to college campuses. charlie talked about romney, i would like to expand on that. one of the biggest things ron paul did he came to college campuses. i know, it sounds like a radical idea. perhaps we can get more college students to agree with our ideas and align if we were on the campuses. and again, i'm not saying there's not a lot of great conservative groups that are on the college campuses. i know, young america foundation does great work on the campuses. leadership substitute, college republican. there's a lot of good groups. we're not doing enough. when i was on the college campuses when i was in college, you saw the obama people there
every day. you had planned parenthood, emily east list. there were no conservative groups, my college campus. i'm from kansas. [laughter] so that should tell you something being a from kansas. i would argue is one of the most, if not the most conservative state in the united states. there were no conservative groups on my college campus. that's one thing we need to do better to reach to the young people. two, once we started the conservative group on the college campuses we need to teach them how to write. and i know that probably some five journalists -- but perhaps we would more journalists who were conservative in the national media if we had more conservative journalists. that's a big problem. it's teaching them to how write and getting them in the main stream media. i would love some more young conservative journalists working for me. i would prefer them working for cnn or somewhere else like that where they can have a bigger effect. the third thing is that -- again, i love i'm glad we're
having the panel and everything. we need to start thinking about out of the box how to include young people at national conferences and get them there. one of the things they do is have youth caucuses young people can get together and talk about the ideas and things that they think they need to change in the movement. i think we need to start thinking about that a will believe the more and having some things like the youth caucuses. i'm out of time! [applause] >> thank you. beautifully done. >> jesse. >> thank you. it's great to be here. it's great to be here with you. in the after math of the 2012 race, there was a lot of sort of introspection on the right. and the gay back and forth among the class is it a message problem with the way we talk about stuff. or what we're talking about. i think the answer is yes. we have a message problem. and we also have a problem in
what we're talking about. i would like that talk you about three broad ideas. the first is what is wrong with the conservative brand and where we need to improve. the second is current issues we talk about and how we did talk about them better. and the third is a new issue that i think, fits with conservative eye dpeels that you don't hear conservative activists or politicians talking about. the brand is bad. i think we need to admit the brand is bad. i think there are two reasons why. one, it doesn't demonstrate embassy. especially to young voter. they don't feel associated with conservativism. they don't feel the conservatives register the concern that go on with their life. the second charlie and francesca talk about. a simple failure to show up. there are good people talking about this in meaningful humanizing way. i think you saw it with governor walker, mike huckabee, who is speaking tonight, is one of the best people at making abstract
concept to people who don't necessarily agree with him relate. as a movement i think we need do a better job with this pep we talked about the involvement. i would like to draw a paralegal to legal immigration reform. so we have a lot of legal immigrants and conservatives ought to celebrate legal immigrants. it's really a fundamental value of the country that the tired, the poor, the folks from around the world who strive for a better life can come here and achieve a better life. and you know what happens if you go to a citizenship ceremony you walk out the doors and the democratic party is there and liberal activists there republican people egger to edge brace new citizens and share them their value. i think we pass up the opportunities to engage. we often talk about these sort of economic issue. right? and i think the problem, the perception problem is that the conservative movement is broadly
seen as a probig business. as opposed to a movement that truly embraces free enterprise. we ought to bed a scrieting for the next business big. the cronyism that exists between big business and big government is too often washed over by the movement. the farm bill is a great example of this. there are a lot of conservative groups who want to talk about problem with snap, food stamp. but they don't want to talk about the fact 80% of the subsidizes go to 15% of the farmers. until we're willing to talk on the interests until we are trying toed a vote advocate for a free and own system of competition. we're not taken credible belie. when we want to reform
entitlement like ?am and social security, and medicare and medicaid. the origin until idea wrote a book before he wrote that sort of power free strayed. he blank blng he talked about the fact a man needs a white shirt and polished leather shoes to go to a meeting to be taken credible belie. we ought to embrace a idea. there's a basic lefm of human diseent city necessary for markets to function. and i think tech issues and open intrernt and internet freedom issues are an opportunity where conservatives can engage. you have heritage action on one side. and the clu. two groups who don't play nicely. coming together and advocating for a fourth amendment. it goes to the issue that charlie talk about. you saw it in the battle over sopa. a bill to take over the
internet. people from across the political spectrum come together and mobilize and so internet issues and tech issues rbtd about the tactics we use. they're about effectively engage people in values we should cherish. freedom whether you're an activist in a poor pressive regime or a person trying to express yourself. the internet provides a tremendous opportunity in the unique opportunity to go that. and too often it's conservatives i think we miss that opportunity to engage with those issues. >> thank you, jesse. i think he's going buy -- if you're interested in that, please, do so. fran chest is a in the green room you talk about structure we may miss the boat on infrastructure. what can you mean by that? >> sure, one i think far too often conservatives and republicans try do.
if they have election year strategy to try to win young people. they don't any effort in to it until it's election year and say i should start the program for young people for the organization for young people because six months is far enough time to win the youth vote. that is completely false. it's not enough time. progressives have been working to win the youth vote in four years. starting eight years ago. we are behind on these things. it takes a lot of time. i think it's one big thing playing the long game and willing to play the long game and say, well we lost the youth vote this year. okay, obviously the youth vote isn't winnable. we should give up. i adopt think we can do that. we lost the youth vote, but it dropped by 11 points. and it since the last election, it's dropped by another 12 points. we're making a difference and have to continue playing long game. ic that's a big thing. for a second i want to talk about the youth caulk us, again,
i ran out of time and i want to expand on it. it's a structure issue. at a lot of progressive conferences, i know sometimes it's -- they have caucuses with wiment's caucus, youth caucus. it goes on and on. progressives like to divide people to every group possible. the youth caucus is fantastic. i've seen it done two wait dj dnc they had a time set aside for the young people. they had speakers specifically talk to the young people. about issues that were pert known them. they didn't have to bore the other people who didn't care about the things. the young people got what they needed out of the conference. it was a huge attraction. it was widely attended by the young people. i like this. i was recently at the progressive annual conference kind of like c pack. they had one where it was young people who met in a room to talk about the problem they had with the movement or thing they like
to see changes in movement, and stuff like that. i thought it was a productive thing. age lot of conservative leaders are no idea young people felt that way about the movement. >> well, said, thank you. there's a text in here. i'm asking charlie to take it. one of the messages side effect leaders send that turn off young conservative balance are the messages that conservative leaders send that turn off young conservatives? >> unfortunately there's quite a few. i'll start with an example everybody knows. that's the murdoch thing. that's simple. everybody knows that. deeper example would be i would talk internet privacy and also taxation. you can see a divide among the conservative movement of certain republicans that are supporting these internet censorship bills and other members of congress ted cruz fighting for internet freedom. you see --
talk about taking their internet way or regulating it more. even more deeper if you talk in term of eroding personal liberty or individual liberty, that's the number one thing that will turn off somebody under 35 is the erosion of their right to make decisions. that's the number one reason why people don't vote for conservatives. they think the person is going to take something away from me i can do today. >> if i can jump in, i think the internet sales tax in particular is a great example of what we have been talking about. if you look at the young people in the poll, 73% oppose it. if you look who ised a vote -- advocating the largest retailers. ..
we should stand up and say no. >> jesse i'm going to ask you because of something you said when you spoke and that was it sounded like we needed to be perceived as more empathetic and that rot to mind the george w. bush's compassionate conservatism. you are a veteran of capitol hill and have watched all capitol hill and have watched all that work.
what's your idea of how conservatorship project for young people in compassionate conservatism? >> sure, so i think the point about empathy is really essential. there is a lot of polling done in the aftermath of the 2012 race and by the winston group and others found the number one issue conservatives and you heard it this morning young voters identify about why they like president obama and why they voted for him was they saw he was trying. not succeeding and not accomplishing but trying and there's an emotional attachment that goes along with that. they believe he understands these issues. auntie interview that charlie reference earlier president obama was asked what are you doing to make it easier for people to start small businesses? president obama referenced the bill that allows for smaller investors to avoid fcc regulations and invest in new companies. that's the jobs act that eric cantor champion and passed through congress.
in an mtv interview he took credit for what was immensely at a republican piece of legislation that has conservative values but it's not enough to gripe about the fact that he took credit for something that he opposed and a lot of democrats and liberals opposed. where were re-talking about a? we should have been championing that and that was a missed opportunity. >> thank you. well said. francesca and others there's a question in here about media outlets. >> i was like all but that would miss for me. >> speaking more probably i don't think a lot of folks that are both 35 we don't have a clue about red alert and what is out there. would you just give us a rundown run down of what the media is doing for young conservatives and what is lacking? give us your landscape would you please? >> unfortunately before red alert launch there wasn't a whole lot which is why we were
able to exist in why we felt it was important to launch red alert politics. they do have a plethora of media for young people. if you're not reading campus reform you should. it's a leadership institute. everyone should check out campus reform. they are great as well doing investigative supplement college-level going back to the main question is what media outlets do that young conservatives read and trust was the question in the huge thing i think is there is not a lot that young people trust period. trust in media is down a lot. i don't blame them when every time you turn on the tv half the time the reporting is wrong. zero come now the health care to physician -- but the ones they do and this is really sad. "the daily show" and stephen colbert. i know. that is what charlie said.
we have recently had an inside look at some polling and this is hilarious but sad at the same time. the people that they looked up to as philosophers. number two was jon stewart. number three was stephen colbert. this is real. we wrote about it on politics.com and you can read about it. that is what we are working with a lot of young people. they think jon stewart is a philosopher. at least young conservatives said john locke and ayn rand and they said barry goldwater. but that just shows you what young people are listening to and reading. we have to do a better job of creating something that can compete with that not necessarily like red alert but maybe a tv station or something that can compete with that or at least going on tv or "the daily
show" or snl to reach those kids because that is what they're watching. >> thank you. there's a question i'm going to do on it derivative here. what are the biggest gaps between older conservatives and younger conservatives on the issues that are hot-button that the younger conservatives have little interest in and older conservatives have a lot or vice versa. i think think you said a little bit about the internet and all that but i would love to hear what you think. >> i talked to a lot of young conservatives and the biggest difference between older and younger is just foreign policy. younger people don't necessarily care about foreign policy but they do want to see national defense but not to international offense. i think there's a fundamental difference between the older conservative crowd that may have pushed ford an expansive foreign policy program which did have legitimacy of the time that younger people are saying if you want to be fiscally conservative amongst the gop crowd why we cut back on all programs and a
balanced way. there is some tension between older conservatives and younger conservatives in that way. >> yeah, so social issues and especially how we talk about social issues. if you look at mike huckabee's appearance on "the daily show" along with john yoo are the two best examples of how a conservative goes into that format and comes across as both reasonable and effective. really pursuing that argument. if you look at the issue of marriage where it's just a nonstarter for young voters charles murray when the ballot initiative came up in maryland and he blogged about this and he tweeted about this. he voted in favor of same-sex marriage and the reason was profoundly pro-family reasons. arguments of people like jonathan rauch you say we have to support and advocate for strong stable partnerships that are raising children.
that is actually a profamily position. if you keep talking about social issues and very narrowly defined highly divisive ways, only talking about abortion and conclave tongues -- turns young voters off. >> i completely agree with what both of them are saying. consistently when i was traveling across the nation covering the campaign talking to young people those were exactly the issues that they were saying turn them off on the issue of gay marriage. it's something that a lot of young people have grown up with and something for them growing up was a normal thing. they know a lot of people who are and they have a lot of friends so for them it's not an argument that's going to be winning. not to say conservatives should stop fighting for traditional marriage. what i'm saying is that is not the message if you are coming to a college campus that you should plaster all over on the posters.
that's not a message that is going to work with young people. >> i teach college freshmen than in seniors at ccu and i like to say the freshmen do math pretty well. they take their age which is typically 18 and they multiply it times 1 trillion and get 18 trillion which is of course our federal debt. what is the gap? how did the under 30's look at financial issues and debt and the deficit? is it on their radar screen text and they feel it's a huge burden coming their way and how did they view those financial issues? >> unfortunately because of obamacare they will be further insulated from that reality until they are 26. they can stay at home with their parents but i feel a lot of young people want to find a job. a lot of polling has been done and that capitalism is a bad word among young people.
great word is entrepreneurship because entrepreneurship in a young person's mind means they come from something and they create something of wealth. when we think of messaging and branding i think when you think less capitalism is unfortunately a bad word because her school system is that those evil capitalists has made all the terrible financial crises happen. one other thing that i wanted to add earlier. when we are selling something to a young person or any demographic we need to not tell the person we are selling what they need to think. if you go door-to-door and you are selling aluminum siding and you talk to the person you are selling to you are not going to tell the person you are selling how to think or what to think. we'll hear what they have to say and then he will frame your sales argument to persuade them. i think too often we think we know in the conservative movement with the younger generation wants. if we go to a college campus
listen to what they have to say for the first 30 minutes and then make our sales pitch. >> what are you hearing on red alert about the financial debt issues? >> unfortunately most young people are completely insulated from that issue. it's not like someone is coming to their outhouse asking them to write a 50,000-dollar check. not having that happen they don't understand how much they are actually going to be on the book to pay back and i think that's the big problem is that we are not effectively communicating how much each person is actually going to be responsible for in their lifetime. i do think another false issue that our party has spent a little too much time on with regards to that is this doubling of the student loan issue. oh my -- talk about an issue that most and people don't care. if you think that's the way you are going to win over young people that's completely wrong. it's false.
that issue doesn't affect most young people a student loans. those are not the issues that young people care about. we do care about the cost of college and how to -- out of control this and this is something a lot agree with the conservatives on. we have to figure out a way to get the cost down and if the cost is down for college we wouldn't owe so much in student loan so it wouldn't even be an issue. if you're going to focus on issues of debt and deficit i think it's an easy one to get all young people of all parties involved in. >> so there has been a lot of work done in this area particularly how people hear numbers and the short answer is really poorly. the average person if you are talking for 15 or 30 seconds can't differentiate between large numbers 1,000,000,000,005,000,000,000,00 in 18 trillion. so over and over again saying we have a 16 trillion-dollar
national debt or whatever the numbers isn't affected. what we need to do is talk about it in terms of tactical costs and moral obligations. in terms of what happens if we fail to act. the social security check that won't come there for the elderly woman who is living on a fixed income. the high cost of medical care that is going to continue to erode our national economy if we don't fix the bad incentive structures that medicare system spreads throughout the health care system. there are ways we can talk about these issues that are effectively persuasive. this isn't an issue limited to young people. young young people have short attention spans certainly more so than they used to but humanizing those numbers as a way to make them have meaning. >> i have the privilege with folks here -- if you don't get to work with young people -- i'm an optimist because i work with young people. quite frankly i think they will do a better job than our
generation has done. we hope so, do we not? [applause] i hope that these three individuals to capture a vision that the younger version not only isn't apathetic but they are extremely well-informed and they have much to teach us not in the hippie generation sense but they have thought about the strategies and they have thought about our problems and we desperately need them to take the reins. not in the future but now to integrate this. these three individuals francesca jesse and charlie awesome job. thrilled you came. wonderful, thank you for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
we are at prospect gardens in princeton new jersey. this is the gardener allen wilson originally designed when she was resident of prospect house. when allen wilson is in the white house she brings the white house gardener back here to this garden at prospect house. she says to the white house gardener let's re-create the section of this garden at the white house and of course this becomes the famous rose garden at the white house. l. and tragically doesn't live to see the rose garden completed however. she is dying in the summer of 1914. she is willed out into the space outside in a wheelchair and she watches but doesn't live to see the completion of the vision she had for roses blooming at the white house.
in a few moments on "the communicators" matthew polka ceo of the american cable association talks about getting high-speed broadband internet access and rural areas. the aca represents 900 smaller cable operators with 8 million subscribers. and a half an hour a look at how changing voter demographics in the suburbs could affect political campaigns and elections. >> host: this week